Citation network
ins Vs. St. Cyr
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 25, 2001
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
privilege of the habeas corpus writ, unquestionably requires some judicial intervention in deportation cases. Heikkila v. BarberSearch
-
law practice. The writ has always been available to review the legality of Executive detention, see, e. g., Felker v. TurpinSearch
-
in effect. Pp. 314-326. 291 (a) A statute's language must require that it be applied retroactively. Bowen v. GeorgetownSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to ascertain whether Congress has directed with the requisite clarity that the law be applied retrospectively. Martin v. HadixSearch
-
Such clarity is not shown by the comprehensiveness of IIRIRA's revision of federal immigration law, see Landgraf v. USISearch
-
cases is relevant to our appraisal of both the substantive and the procedural questions raised by 1 See Mahadeo v. RenoSearch
-
Liang v. INSSearch
-
Tasios v. RenoSearch
-
FloresMiramontes v. INSSearch
-
F.3d 1133 (CA9 2000). But see Max-George v. RenoSearch
-
Morales-Ramirez v. RenoSearch
-
Richardson v. RenoSearch
-
waiver from deportation. See Matter of Silva, 16 1. & N. Dec. 26, 30 (1976) (adopting position of Francis v. INSSearch
-
see also Mattis v. RenoSearch
-
n. 33, infra. 9 See, e. g., Bowen v. MichiganSearch
-
McNary v. HaitianSearch
-
Congress' power, we expect a clear indication that Congress intended that result. See Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. FloridaSearch
-
see United States v. NordicSearch
-
Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSearch
-
Cf. Ruckelshaus v. MonsantoSearch
-
see Crowell v. BensonSearch
-
U. S. 22 , 62 (1932), we are obligated to construe the statute to avoid such problems. See Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
U. S. 229, 235 (1953). Unlike the provisions of AEDPA that we construed in Felker v. TurpinSearch
-
As was stated in Hooper v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. FloridaSearch
-
Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568 , 575 (1988) (citing Grenada County Supervisors v. BrogdenSearch
-
see also NLRB v. CatholicSearch
-
Murray v. SchoonerSearch
-
Parsons v. BedfordSearch
-
the protection of the writ to state prisoners, cf. id., at 663-664, or by subsequent legal developments, see LaGuerre v. RenoSearch
-
of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest.14 See, e. g., Swain v. PressleySearch
-
Brown v. AllenSearch
-
for our purposes, those early cases contain no suggestion that habeas relief in cases in- 16 See Sommersett v. StewartSearch
-
King v. SchieverSearch
-
United States v. VillatoSearch
-
Commonwealth v. HollowaySearch
-
Neuman, Habeas Corpus, Executive Detention, and the Removal of Aliens, 98 Colum. L. Rev., at 990-1004. 17See King V. NathanSearch
-
King v. NathanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial